7 Facts That Show the American Dream Is Dead

A recent poll
showed that more than half of all people in this country don’t believe
that the American dream is real. Fifty-nine percent of those polled in June agreed that “the American dream has become impossible for most people to achieve." More and more Americans believe there is “not much opportunity” to get ahead.

The
public has reached this conclusion for a very simple reason: It’s true.
The key elements of the American dream—a living wage, retirement
security, the opportunity for one's children to get ahead in life—are
now unreachable for all but the wealthiest among us. And it’s getting
worse. As inequality increases, the fundamental elements of the American
dream are becoming increasingly unaffordable

for the majority. Here are seven ways the American dream is dying.

1. Most people can’t get ahead financially.

If the American dream means a reasonable rate of income growth for working people, most people can’t expect to achieve it.

As Ben Casselman observes at fivethirtyeight.com,
the middle class hasn’t seen its wage rise in 15 years. In fact,

the
percentage of middle-class households in this nation is actually
falling. Median household income has fallen since the financial crisis
of 2008, while income for the wealthiest of Americans has actually
risen.

Thomas Edsall wrote in the New York Timesthat “Not
only has the wealth of the very rich doubled since 2000, but corporate
revenues are at record levels.” Edsall also observed that, “In 2013, according to Goldman Sachs, corporate profits rose five times faster than wages.”

2. The stay-at-home parent is a thing of the past.

There
was a time when middle-class families could lead a comfortable
lifestyle on one person’s earnings. One parent could work while the
other stayed home with the kids.

Those days are gone. As Elizabeth Warren and co-author Amelia Warren Tyagi documented in their 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap,
the increasing number of two-earner families was matched by rising
costs in a number of areas such as education, home costs and
transportation.

These cost increases, combined with wage
stagnation, mean that families are struggling to make ends meet—and that
neither parent has the luxury of staying home any longer.

In fact,
parenthood has become a financial risk. Warren

and Tyagi write that
“Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end
up in financial collapse.” This book was written over a decade ago;
things are even worse today.

3. The rich are more debt-free. Others have no choice.

Most
Americans are falling behind anyway, as their salary fails to keep up
with their expenses. No wonder debt is on therise. As Joshua Freedman and Sherle R. Schwenninger
observe in a paper for the New America Foundation, “American
households… have become dependent on debt to maintain their standard of
living in the face of stagnant wages.”

This
“debt-dependent economy,” as Freedman and Schwenninger call it, has
negative implications for the nation as a whole. But individual families
are suffering too.

Rani Molla of the Wall Street Journalnotes
that “Over the past 20 years the average increase in spending on some
items has exceeded the growth of incomes. The gap is especially poignant
for those under 25 years old.”

There are increasingly two classes of Americans: Those

who are taking on additional debt, and the rich.

4. Student debt is crushing a generation of non-wealthy Americans.

Education
for every American who wants to get ahead? Forget about it. Nowadays
you have to be rich to get a college education; that is, unless you want
to begin your career with a mountain of debt. Once you get out of
college, you’ll quickly discover that the gap between spending and
income is greatest for people under 25 years of age.

Education, as Forbescolumnist Steve Odland
put it in 2012, is “the great equalizer… the facilitator of the
American dream.” But at that point college costs had risen 500 percent
since 1985, while the overall consumer price index rose by 115 percent.
As of 2013, tuition at a private university was projected to cost nearly $130,000 on average over four years, and that’s not counting food, lodging, books, or other expenses.

Public
colleges and universities have long been viewed as the get-ahead option
for all Americans, including the poorest among us. Not anymore. The
University of California was once considered a national model for free,
high-quality public education, but today tuition at UC Berkeley is
$12,972 per year. (It was tuition-free until Ronald Reagan became
governor.) Room and board is $14,414. The total cost of on-campus
attendance at Berkeley, including books and other items, is estimated to
be $32,168.

The California story has been repeated across the country, as state cutbacks
in the wake of the financial crisis caused the cost of public higher
education to soar by 15 percent in a two-year period. With a median
national household income

of $51,000, even public colleges are quickly
becoming unaffordable. Sure, there are still some scholarships and
grants available. But even as college costs rise, the availability of
those programs is falling, leaving middle-class and lower-income
students further in debt as out-of-pocket costs rise.

5. Vacations aren’t for the likes of you anymore.

Think you’d like to have a nice vacation? Think again. According to a 2012 American Express survey,
Americans who were planning vacations expected to spend an average of
$1,180 per person. That’s $4,720 for a family of four. But then, why
worry about paying for that vacation? If you’re unemployed, you can’t
afford it. And even if you have a job, there’s a good chance you won’t
get the time off anyway.

As the Center for Economic and Policy Research
found in 2013, the United States is the only advanced economy in the
world that does not require employers to offer paid vacations to their
workers. The number of paid holidays and vacation days received by the
average worker in this country (16) would not meet the statutory minimum
requirements in 19 other developed countries, according to the
CEPR. Thirty-one percent of workers in smaller businesses had no paid
vacation days at all.

The CEPR also found that 14 percent of employees at larger corporations also received no paid vacation days. Overall, roughly one in four working Americans gets no vacation time at all.

Rep. Alan Grayson, who has introduced the Paid Vacation Act, correctly notes that the average working American now spends 176 hours more per year on the job than was the case in 1976.

Between the pressure to work more hours and the cost of vacation, even people who do get vacation time—at least on paper—are hard-pressed to take any time off. That’s why 175 million vacation days go unclaimed each year.

6. Even with health insurance, medical care is increasingly unaffordable for most people.

Medical care when you need it? That’s for the wealthy.

The
Affordable Care Act was designed to increase the number of Americans
who are covered by health insurance. But health coverage in this country
is the worst of any highly developed nation—and that’s for people who
have health insurance.

Every year the Milliman actuarial firm
analyzes the average costs of medical care, including the household’s
share of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs, for a family of
four with the kind of insurance that is considered higher quality
coverage in this country: a PPO plan which allows them to use a wider
range of healthcare providers.

Even as overall wealth in this
country has shifted upward, away from middle-class families, the cost of
medical care is increasingly being borne by the families themselves. As
the Milliman study shows,
the employer-funded portion of healthcare costs has risen 52 percent
since 2007, the first year of the recession. But household costs have
risen by a staggering 73 percent, or 8 percent per year, and now average
$9,144. In the same time period, Census Bureau figures show that median
household income has fallen 8 percent.

That means that household healthcare costs are skyrocketing even as income falls dramatically.

The
recent claims of “lowered healthcare costs” are misleading. While the
rate of increase is slowing down, healthcare costs are continuing to
increase. And the actual cost to working Americans is increasing even
faster, as corporations continue to maximize their record profits by
shifting healthcare costs onto consumers. This shift is expected to
accelerate as the result of a misguided provision in the Affordable Care Act which will tax higher-cost plans.

According
to an OECD survey, the number of Americans who report going without
needed healthcare in the past year because of cost was higher than in 10 comparable countries.
This was true for both lower-income and higher-income Americans,
suggesting that insured Americans are also feeling the pinch when it
comes to getting medical treatment.

As inequality worsens, wages
continue to stagnate, and more healthcare costs are placed on the backs
of working families, more and more Americans will find medical care
unaffordable.

7. Americans can no longer look forward to a secure retirement.

Want
to retire when you get older, as earlier generations did, and enjoy a
secure life after a lifetime of hard work? You’llget to… if you’re
rich.

There was a time when most middle-class Americans could work
until they were 65 and then look forward to a financially secure
retirement. Corporate pensions guaranteed a minimum income for the
remainder of their life. Those pensions, coupled with Social Security
income and a lifetime’s savings, assured that these ordinary Americans
could spend their senior years in modest comfort.

Meanwhile,
corporations are gutting these pension plans in favor of far less
general programs. The financial crisis of 2008, driven by the greed of
Wall Street one percenters, robbed most American household of their
primary assets. And right-wing “centrists” of both parties, not
satisfied with the rising retirement age which has already cut the
program’s benefits, continue to press for even deeper cuts to the
program.

One group, Natixis Global Asset Management,
ranks the United States 19th among developed countries when it comes to
retirement security. The principal reasons the US ranks so poorly are
1) the weakness of our pension programs; and 2) the stinginess of our
healthcare system, which even with Medicare for the elderly, is far
weaker than that of nations such as Austria.

Economists used to
speak of retirement security as a three-legged stool. Pensions were one
leg of the stool, savings were another and Social Security was the
third. Today two legs of the stool have been shattered, and anti-Social
Security advocates are sawing away at the third.

Conclusion

Vacations;
an education; staying home to raise your kids; a life without crushing
debt; seeing the doctor when you don’t feel well; a chance to retire:
one by one, these mainstays of middle-class life are disappearing for
most Americans. Until we demand political leadership that will do
something about it, they’re not coming back.

Can the American
dream be restored? Yes, but it will take concerted effort to address two
underlying problems. First, we must end the domination of our electoral
process by wealthy and powerful elites. At the same time, we must begin
to address the problem of growing economic inequality. Without a
national movement to call for change, change simply isn’t going to
happen.

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a blogger and writer, a former Wall Street executive, a consultant, and a former musician.

Duterte wants ‘out,’ wants Charter change hurried

Posted on October 31, 2016

THE
Speaker of the House of Representatives said his chamber will meet its
original target date of 2019 to come up with a draft Constitution, in
time for its submission to a plebiscite along with the midterm elections
that year.

President Rodrigo R. Duterte himself had urged Congress to
“hurry up the process” in his expressed wish to step down early ahead of
his six-year term.

“Yes. We’ll do it,” Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez said in a text message.
Asked if the House was on track to meet its target date, Mr. Alvarez
said: “Yes.”

To be sure, an executive order (EO), as also recommended by Mr. Alvarez,
has yet to be issued seeking to establish a 25-man constitutional
commission tasked with writing a draft Charter for subsequent
deliberation in Congress.

Mr. Alvarez said he “will check” on the status of the EO, which has been
forwarded to the Palace in late August and is pending with the Office
of the Executive Secretary.

In a speech in Cotabato City on Oct. 29, Mr. Duterte said: “Kapag natapos iyan ng tatlong taon (When this is completed in three years), asahan ninyo, I give you my word: Kapag nandiyan na ’yang framework (When the framework is there), I will resign to give way to a new President. Wala na kayong isipin pa (You have nothing more to think of).”

“Ako na sana mismo ang magsabi alis na ako. Hindi ako maghintay ng six years (Let me be the one to say that I want out. I won’t wait for six years),” he also said.

“Just hurry up the process. Kapag nandiyan na ’yang federal, tapos paghati-hatiin na ’yung region, federal region ganun, at more power iyan sa baba less power doon sa itaas at kayo na ang bahala kung ano ang nakita ninyo dito
(Once the federal [system] is in place, the regions will be carved up
into federal regions, and there will be more power below and less power
in high [office], it’s up to you what you’ll see here),” he added.

The drive toward federalism is in keeping with Mr. Duterte’s
election-campaign platform early this year to have the country
decentralized.

Mr. Alvarez had earlier said he hoped the EO would be signed by
September, after which the constitutional commission would have been
formed in October.

The House targets the last three years of Mr. Duterte’s administration
as a transition period toward federalism. The general election scheduled
in 2022 will be held under the new Charter, if approved in a
plebiscite.

Meanwhile, the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments has already
passed a resolution calling for Congress to convene itself into a
constituent assembly and has formed a technical working group to
consolidate related resolutions in the House.

Besides constituent assembly and people’s initiative, the other mode
provided by the 1987 Constitution for revising the charter is the
holding of a constitutional convention. But Mr. Duterte had set aside
that plan because of its estimated cost of P7 to P8 billion.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

October 28, 2016 "Information Clearing House"
- I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to
steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not
cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not
own Trump.

Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it. A person who speaks like this:

—Wall
Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal
Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled
American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down
the toilet. In order to save the mega-banks’ balance sheets from their
irresponsible behavior, the Fed has denied retirees any interest income
on their savings for eight years, forcing the elderly to draw down their
savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced from employment
by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.

—The
military/security complex which has spent trillions of our taxpayer
dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order
to enrich themselves and their power.

—The
neoconservartives whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony thrusts
the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.

—The
US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India and
elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from
lower labor costs.

—Agribusiness
(Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the soil, the water, the
oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and
chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.

—The
extractive industries—energy, mining, fracking, and timber—that
maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water
supply.

—The
Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy and is committing
genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide
against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign
countries that stand in Israell’s way.

What
convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the
vast difference between the presstitutes’ reporting and the facts on the
ground.

According
to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in
Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before
the vote. Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.

I
am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere.
Reports I receive are that Hillary’s public appearances are unattended
but Trumps are so heavily attended that people have to be turned away.
This is a report from a woman in Florida:

“Trump
has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this week. I
only see Trump signs and stickers in my wide travels. I dined at a
Mexican restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were
talking about how they had tried to see Trump when he came to
Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at the venue at 4:00 for a
6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were turned
away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that
the doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds
present were a mix of races and ages.”

I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its veracity.

I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.

This
is how the theft of the election is supposed to work: The media
concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not
only Americans but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an
unacceptable candidate that he has lost the election before the vote.

By
controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who
challenge the stolen election are without a foundartion in the media.
All media reports will say that it was a run away victory for Hillary
over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.

And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us into nuclear war.

That
the Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people is
verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in
early voting in Texas. The NPR presstitutes have declared that Hillary
is such a favorite that even Republican Texas is up for grabs in the
election.

If
this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be
programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes? Those voters who
noted that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The
election officials, claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed
to paper ballots. But who will count them? No “glitches” caused Hillary
votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to Hillary.

The
most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix. This movie captured
the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real
America there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly
Donald Trump, to challenge the system. Americans of all
stripes—academics, scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats,
right-wing, left-wing, US Representatives, US Senators, Presidents,
corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and foreigners—live in a
false reality.

In
the United States today a critical presidential election is in process
in which not a single important issue is addressed by Hillary and the
presstitutes. This is total failure. Democracy, once the hope of the
world, has totally failed in the United States of America. Trump is
correct. The American people must restore the accountability of
government to the people.

“Confronting China”
By John Pilger
October 28, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- TJC: Please
tell us about your new
film, The
Coming War on China.
JP: The Coming War on
China is my 60th film
and perhaps one of the most
urgent. It continues the
theme of illuminating the
imposition of great power
behind a facade of
propaganda as news. In
2011, President Obama
announced a ‘pivot to Asia’
of US forces: almost
two-thirds of American naval
power would be transferred
to Asia and the Pacific by
2020.
The undeclared rationale for
this was the ‘threat’ from
China, by some measure now
the greatest economic power.
The Secretary of Defense,
Ash Carter, says US policy
is to confront those ‘who
see America’s dominance and
want to take that away from
us’.
The film examines power in
both countries and how
nuclear weapons, in American
eyes, are the bedrock of its
dominance. In its first
‘chapter’, the film reveals
how most of the population
of the Marshall Islands in
the Pacific were unwittingly
made into nuclear guinea
pigs in a programme whose
secrets – and astonishing
archive – are related to the
presence of a missile base
now targeting China. The
Coming War on China will
be released in cinemas in
the UK on December 1st and
broadcast on ITV (in the UK)
on December 6th.TJC: How do
you assess Australia’s role
in America’s ‘Pivot to
Asia’?
JP: Australia is virtually
the 51st state of the US.
Although China is
Australia’s biggest trader,
on which much of the
national economy relies,
‘confronting China’ is the
diktat from Washington. The
Australian political
establishment, especially
the military and
intelligence agencies, are
fully integrated into what
is known as the ‘alliance’,
along with the dominant
Murdoch media. I often feel
a certain sadness about the
way my own country – with
all its resources and
opportunities – seems locked
into such an unnecessary,
dangerous obsequious role in
the world. If the ‘pivot’
proceeds, Australia could
find itself fighting, yet
again, a great power’s war.TJC: With
regards to the British and
American media, how can the
US get away with selling
China as a threat when it is
encircling China?
JP: That’s a question that
goes to the heart of
modern-day propaganda. China
is encircled by a ‘noose’ of
some 400 US bases, yet the
news has ignored this while
concentrating on the
‘threat’ of China building
airstrips on disputed islets
in the South China Sea,
clearly as a defence to a US
Navy blockade.TJC: Obama’s
visit to Japan, and
particularly to Hiroshima,
was a really cynical act.
What was your impression of
Japan and the political
situation there?
JP: Japan is an American
colony in all but name –
certainly in terms of its
relationship with the rest
of the world and especially
China. The historian Bruce
Cumings explores this in an
interview in the film.
Within the constraints of
American dominance, indeed
undeterred by Washington,
Japan’s current prime
minister Shinzo Abe has
developed an extreme
nationalist position, in
which contrition for
Japanese actions in the
Second World War is anathema
and the post-war ‘peace
constitution’ is likely to
be changed.
Abe has gone as far as
boasting that Japan will use
nuclear weapons if it wants.
In any US conflict with
China, Japan – which last
year announced its biggest
ever ‘defence’ budget –
would play a critical role.
There are 32 US military
installations on the
Japanese island of Okinawa,
facing China. However, there
is a sense in modern Asia
that power in the world has
indeed moved east and
peaceful ‘Asian solutions’
to regional animosities are
possible.
TJC: Do you think the new
trade and investment deals
like the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
and especially the
Transpacific Partnership (TPP)
will affect China’s business
operations?
JP: It’s difficult to say,
but I doubt it. What is
remarkable about the rise of
China is the way it has
built, almost in the blink
of an eye, a trade,
investment and banking
structure that rivals that
of the Bretton Woods
institutions. Unknown to
many of us, China is
developing its ‘New Silk
Road’ to Europe at an
astonishing pace. China’s
response to threats from
Washington is a diplomacy
that’s tied to this
development, and which
includes a burgeoning
alliance with Russia.T.J. Coles is
the author of Britain’s Secret Wars
(2016, Clairview Books).

Friday, October 28, 2016

Anonymous: World War 3 is on the Horizon (2016)

For the last two months, Anonymous has been reporting on a possible
global conflict involving World War III between the United States and
its allies in West, and Russia and its allies in the East.Continue reading below:

Transcript:
Greetings World, We are Anonymous.
For the last two months, we have been consistently reporting on a
possible global conflict, World War 3 between the United States and its
allies in the West, and Russia and its allies in the East.
The dispute on the South China Sea has severely damaged the United
States relations with the Peoples Republic of China. After the Permanent
Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China’s nine-dash-line
claim in the South China Sea, and its land reclamation activities on
islets are invalid and unlawful, the United States has been preparing to
sail in the area under a so-called Freedom of Navigation principle.
This has angered the Chinese. In August, the Chinese Defense
Minister, Chang Wanquan told his country’s citizens to prepare for, what
he described as the peoples war at sea. Mr Wanquan was referring
directly to the United States planned provocation under the pretext of
Freedom of Navigation. China has since vowed to take all necessary
measures available to protect its sovereignty over the South China Sea,
revealing that it had the right to set up an air defense zone on the
sea.
China has also since been positioning and testing its nuclear
weapons, and planning military drills on its waters with Russia. Even
the United States has confirmed that China has tested an
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which is capable of striking
everywhere in the world within half an hour.

Moving away from the South China Sea, we arrive in Syria. It is an
open secret that the civil war in Syria is a proxy war between the
United States and Russia. Russia has even intervened physically on the
request of the Syrian government. The United States, unable to get any
invitation, has been openly and secretly arming many rebel groups in the
country, with open plans to overthrow the Syrian government.
Of course, since Russia honored the invitation of the Syrian
government last year, the war has been turning in favor of the Syrian
government, which was falling before Russia’s intervention.
As we speak now, tension is mounting between the United States and
Russia. Nerves are at their highest since the Cold War era. The United
States, at the moment, is sitting on tenterhooks. Many officials in the
president Obama administration are frustrated and confused regarding the
situation in Syria.
The United States has announced that it has ended all contacts with
Russia in Syria. This announcement by the United States comes as Russia,
beginning on September. 22nd, intensified its military operations in
Syria, with the intentions to capture the city of Aleppo for the Syrian
government. Diplomatic efforts to put an end to the fighting in Syria,
have collapsed.
As the Aleppo operation continues, Russia has given the United States
a stern warning not to take any action against the Syrian government
forces. In fact, there are many Russian jet fighters stationed in Syria,
ready to shoot down any United States jet fighter that attempts to
strike on the Syrian government forces.
These developments from Moscow are not going down easily with the
United States. The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, is said
to have urged president Obama to intervene and face the consequences
from Russia. He is said to have even favored a nuclear deterrent against
Russia.
However, it appears that before Kerry could even make this suggestion
to president Obama, the Russians had already gathered intelligence on
the happenings within the White House. According to Zvezda, a Russian
defense ministry Television channel, the country has started preparing
its citizens for a possible nuclear war with the United States – because
of the mounting tensions in Syria. Russia has since moved to deploy
nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in its western-most region,
Kaliningrad, which borders on NATO members of Poland and Lithuania.
Due to how the situation has become, some top officials at the United
States defense headquarters have finally spoken. These Pentagon
officials have admitted that World War 3 is imminent, and that its going
to be deadly and fast. The military generals were speaking on a
future-of-the-army panel in Washington.
“A conventional conflict in the near future will be extremely lethal
and fast, and we will not own the stopwatch,” Major General William Hix
said.
General Hix also stated that China and Russia’s armies are becoming
increasingly technological, and that the Pentagon was getting ready for
violence on the scale that the United States Army has not seen since
Korea.
His comments were also echoed by lieutenant Gen Joseph Anderson and
Chief of Staff, Gen Mark A. Milley, who described war between nation
states as almost guaranteed.
The generals also said apart from the conventional battle, cyber
battle, too, has become a reality against the United States, revealing
that even smaller nations are launching it against the country.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.Sources:
1. http://uk.businessinsider.com/…
2. http://www.reuters.com/…

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Russia Tests Nuclear Warhead That Can Outsmart US Anti-Missile Systems

By The Daily SheepleOctober 27, 2016

Share this article:

Russian strategic missile troops reportedly launched an RS-18
ballistic missile on Tuesday. The launch may have been a test of the
advanced hypersonic glider warhead, which would be able to defeat US
anti-missile systems.

Popular defense blog
MilitaryRussia.ru says the launch was meant to test Russia's hypersonic
glider warhead, currently known by its developer designation, 'object
4202', or Aeroballistic Hypersonic Warhead.

A select few countries are currently developing the
technology. The US has the HTV-2, a device developed by DARPA that has
two partially successful tests under its belt.

The Chinese warhead using the same technology is called DF-ZF, with Beijing first confirming a test in 2014.

India
is also studying hypersonic flight technology, but unlike Russia, the
US and China, it is reportedly not developing a strategic missile
warhead.

A hypersonic glider vehicle (HGV) is
different from a conventional ballistic missile warhead in that it
travels most of the time in the stratosphere rather than in space.

It gives an HGV-tipped missile greater range and may give anti-missile systems a shorter window to respond to an attack.

More importantly, an HGV can maneuver during the approach
to a target at high speed, making interception significantly harder,
because it makes guiding an interceptor missile towards the attacking
vehicle challenging and potentially impossible with current rocket
technology.

Object 4202 is reportedly meant to be used with Russia's next-gen heavy strategic missile the RS-28 Sarmat.

Military
experts estimate that the new ICBM, an image of which was first made
public this week, may carry up to three HGVs as payload.

FDA Found Manipulating The Media In Favor Of Big Pharma

Although the Federal Drug Administration
is thought to serve American consumers by keeping them safe and
well-informed, they are doing just the opposite by controlling the media
and science press in order to create misleading and one-sided articles.
An investigation into documents released through the Freedom of Information Act by Scientific American revealed
that the FDA uses a variety of tactics to prevent the full truth from
being revealed about a certain product. The biggest tactic is the
“close-hold embargo,” where they invite a select few news sites to a
briefing about the to-be released information with conditions. They
stipulate that the journalists have to surrender their reportorial
independence by agreeing to only speak with sources approved by their
agency.
When NPR reporter Rob Stein was extended one of these loaded invitations, he responded by saying, “My
editors are uncomfortable with the condition that we cannot seek
reaction,” and asked that they be given a bit more wiggle room to speak
with others. When Stein was met with a resounding no, he decided to
agree to the terms and attend the briefing.
Stein wasn’t the only reporter to attend this particular briefing, as other sites such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and TheNew York Times were all present. Despite agreeing to the terms, not everyone is actually comfortable with these conditions. The New York Times former Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, said:

“I think embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are
dangerous because they limit the role of the reporter whose job is to do
a full look at a subject. It’s really inappropriate for a source to be
telling a journalist whom he or she can and can’t talk to.”

Other tactics used by the FDA include denying major media outlets any
access to the briefing prior to the public release of information, and
the deliverance of half-truths when asked questions directly to hinder
an investigation. Those who intend to speak with unapproved sources or
announce these embargoes are met with threats.

These embargoes are often used within the science community, but none
as strict as the FDA’s rules on whom reporters can confer with. The
usual restrictions only focus on the date and time that a news story can
be published about a particular study, which is why the stories tend to
break at the same time across media outlets.

The Association of Health Care Journalists said that the
close-hold embargo is “a serious obstacle to good journalism. Reporters
who want to be competitive on a story will essentially have to agree to
write only what the FDA wants to tell the world, without analysis or
outside commentary.”

If the FDA was truly concerned about the
well-being of American citizens, it wouldn’t be so shrouded in secrecy
and insistent on the way news stories are covered. Instead, they put up
their list of demands in an effort to protect the medical industry and pharmaceutical companies whose interests and profits matter more than having a well-informed public.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

The U.S. Doesn’t Need the Philippines

America is a curious
great power. It cowers before international lightweights, begging the
least significant nations to let it defend them. Such as the
Philippines.

President Duterte is not a reliable ally. The U.S. should not allow such an unpredictable regime to be a trigger for war.

President Rodrigo Duterte
has gained notoriety for the official murder of thousands of drug users
and dealers. He then publicly insulted President Obama for criticizing
this murderous policy.

United States credibility
suffers when a nation long subsidized and defended by America shows such
ostentatious disrespect. The Philippine president shouldn’t be treated
like a co-equal and ally if he doesn’t behave like one.

Moreover, the Philippines
needs America far more than America needs the Philippines. Manila spends
less than 1 percent of its gross domestic product on its military and
its best ships are U.S. cast-offs. It doesn’t help defend the United
States from anyone.

Rather, Manila expects
Washington’s protection even though the archipelago matters little for
the United States. America retains the Pacific as a barrier and faces no
serious threats to its homeland.

Of course, Washington sees
domination of East Asia as an American birthright. Base access
obviously helps the U.S. attempt to enforce its will. However,
convenience does not translate into interests substantial enough to risk
war.

The region matters far
more to nearby China, which understandably does not want to be
contained. It also costs Beijing far less to deter U.S. intervention
than it does for America to project power: missiles and subs are less
costly than aircraft carrier groups. With no one threatening free
navigation, Washington must decide what kind of risk it is willing to
take on behalf of what remain primarily other nations’ territorial
interests.

Insisting on defending the
Philippines irrespective of its actions is particularly dangerous.
Manila relies on American support rather than its own military in
confronting China and could drag the United States into a conflict
easily.

Washington should drop the
“mutual” defense treaty and joint patrols. Maintaining base access is
good insurance but does not require a security guarantee, especially
over contested territory, such as Scarborough Shoal. Moreover, such
access is not worth paying any price: America lost no influence when
Subic Bay and Clark Airfield closed decades ago.

President Duterte is not a
reliable ally. The United States should not allow such an unpredictable
regime to be a trigger for war.

With the first anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, recently having passed,
and the Obama Administration near its end, this seems to be a good time
to consider one (there are a number) of the myths about the deal, and
put it soundly to bed. Within the Obama Administration and in fact among
those within the Beltway that support the JCPOA is the notion that
“Iran needs the agreement, but we want it”. The truth is that Iran needs the agreement as does the current
Administration of the United States. It is embarrassing for a superpower
to acknowledge such a need. It suggests vulnerability, a state of mind
anathema to the American political psyche, too difficult to tolerate,
and so better to flip the truth with a distortion.
Turning to key statements from the Obama Administration is one means
to uncover this need. Take, for example, national security advisor Susan
Rice, stating in 2013:

“The Iranian nuclear issue remains one of the gravest threats to international security”. (1)

Take her word at face value for a moment – no such statement could
more indicate dire need. Obama himself touts the agreement as a
prevention of war with Iran.
Obama, as well as Rice, are politicians. It is difficult to know
whether they truly believe their own words, but they have provided them.
Putting their words aside and looking at track record in foreign policy
is far more compelling, revealing and closer to the truth of how need
has propelled the Administration. Also, exposure of selective
negotiated elements within the 165 page JCPOA helps to show in a
practical way how need has been played out.
Someone needs only to imagine that they are President Obama and the following short list of foreign policy negative decision-making and pronouncements leaps out. With your Administration, you have:

• Entrenched yourself as history’s greatest arms merchant, including exceptional promotion of arms to the most unstable part of the world, the Middle East

• Planned a $1 trillion dollar modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal,
after being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace with no real
accomplishment to show for it but for speaking and advocating for a
nuclear weapons free world.

• Announced in the 2008/2009 period
broadly that Al Qaeda was so decimated as to be essentially buried.
Reasonably informed private citizens recognized the remarkable ignorance
of the comments. Events throughout Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria
and other locations have proven the statement to be hollow.

• Stated more currently, in early
January ’16 and two days before the horrific ISIS attack on Paris that
“We had contained ISIS” in Syria and Iraq. Assuredly the same reasonably
informed portion of the public recognized that the assertion would
prove to be empty.

• With special influence from Hillary Clinton, decided that a policy of unprovoked war against the country of Libya in 2011
was both sensible thinking and a reflection of “Smart Power”. Refusals
to accept two different cease fire/peace accords, one in fact worked
out between the American military and Libya’s army, with endorsement by
Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi, led to mayhem, evident today. After launching
67 cruise missiles on the country in the first day of “operations”
decidedly refused to call this a war, but a “kinetic military action”.
Most of mankind surely recognized the offensiveness of such language.
By virtue of the war, Libya went from being one of the most advanced
countries in Africa (though not without problems, assuredly) to state
disintegration, to the point of it being officially declared a failed
state.

• Officially supported the development of ISIS in Syria,
from 2012 until 2015, as official Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
declassified documents revealed. In 2015, claiming to be fighting
ferociously against ISIS, mysteriously failed to bomb the ISIS
stolen-oil truck convoys running from Syria into Turkey, until Russia
shamed your Administration by bombarding these itself. And at least
indirectly, supported the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the Al-Nusra
Front, working hand in glove with countries such as Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, and Qatar to provide financing and weapons, and to push a
military agenda in the already horrendous civil war in Syria.

• Deliberately provoked Russia in Ukraine by supporting a coup d’etat,
and thereby created tensions that never should have been and which
could well have been either avoided altogether, or greatly lessened. In
an effort apparently unparalleled since the Cold War, have launched a
deliberate policy of blame, this against Vladimir Putin for virtually
every ill, and have been so intent to poison the atmosphere of relations
with Russia that your press secretary was allowed to criticize the way
Mr. Putin sat when speaking with another head of state.

• Were exposed by Edward Snowden for promoting the massive National Security Administration surveillance program,
so widespread as to even be tapping the phone of Angel Merkel, head of
state of Germany, one of America’s most reliable allies. Even the sleepy
American public was alarmed.

• Failed to offer any real support to the plight of the Palestinians,
never mind justice, in either seriously trying to prevent excessive,
disproportionate violence by Israel against them, or stand up to Prime
Minister Netanyahu when Israel continued to build West Bank settlements.

• Announced in 2008 the coming “most transparent Presidency”.
In a remarkably secretive manner, proceeded to design the TPP trade
agreement. The content and details of the Agreement have been shrouded,
except for those multi-national corporations which would be the expected
biggest beneficiaries.

Could a President with such a record ever not need some self-defined
signature foreign policy achievement? The answer is easy. American
Presidents, Obama among them, are obsessed with their “legacy”, or what
they leave in their wake. The media’s promotion of legacy adds to the
obsession. The Iran nuclear agreement was to be an essential part of
Obama’s legacy, given his track record in so many places around the
world. While there are other reasons assuredly for having the agreement,
it is debatable that they might reflect need more than want. Among them
would be prospects for multi-nationals to work deals with Iran. The
foreign policy track record suggests no debate, however.
The fact that there even has been an agreement with Iran is proof
that the Administration line of want, not need is empty rhetoric.
Successive American Administrations, Clinton-Bush-Obama, maintained
consistent stances in “negotiations” or behavior toward Iran that
reflected what Mohamed El-Baradei, Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997-2009 described as at times
bullying, prodding, dominating and refusing to show respect to Iran as a
nation.Consider his quote:

“The Western notion of how to approach Iran was like
going into a souk and offering the proprietor a fair sum for the desired
merchandise but also threatening to burn down the shop if he
didn’t accept. While the tactic might play well in a Clint Eastwood
movie, it was doomed from the start in Tehran.” (2)

He was also very critical of Iran, but the point here is that bullies
do not enter into agreements simply when they want to – they enter when
they need to enter. The power posturing reared its head even during the
opening of negotiations, with Wendy Sherman, Obama’s chief negotiator
for the Iran negotiations, offering the accusatory line that “lying is
in the DNA of Iran”.Elements of the JCPOA with Iran
Enter the elements of the JCPOA. The Agreement was negotiated between
Iran and collectively the United States, Britain, France, Germany,
Russia, and China, defined as the E3/EU+3. There are negotiation
outcomes that would not likely have been secured by Iran if the E3/EU+3
merely wanted the agreement. A tortuous and even pathological distrust
has existed for decades between the United States (especially) and Iran,
working in both directions. This type of distrust does not tend to
promote concessions unless an opposing party, in this case Iran, insists
upon them, and the other driving party (United States) feels a strong
need for the agreement.

• An Administration that really needed
an agreement might well relent on an “anytime, anywhere” provision
regarding inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, and this is exactly what
the Obama Administration did. Anytime anywhere refers to unannounced
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the
international watchdog agency for nuclear proliferation. Iran would not
allow this. In other words, just don’t show up. Requests are required.
The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, long a facility of concern by western
powers, is one such example. It is to be converted into a nuclear and
physics research center. (3)

• Additionally, consistent with its
policy of refusing to recognize Iran’s right to safeguarded enrichment,
the Administration and its predecessor worked hard to thwart
negotiations with Iran unless Iran first suspended its nuclear program,
including enrichment. Iran repeatedly refused. The Obama Administration
never got the precondition of suspension, including in the interim
agreement to the JCPOA, whose terms were published by the European Union
in its “Factsheet” of 17 January, 2014. (4) This was another striking
example of need over want.

• While the west would never have
preferred the following protective language for Iran, it conceded, out
of need. When requesting access per the JCPOA, “good faith, with due
observance of the sovereign rights of Iran” must be honored, and “such
requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other
national security activities”.(5) The latter refers in part to the
Parchin military complex, which America and its European allies have
long had suspicions about as to use and research but which Iran has
maintained has no nuclear application.

• To prevent feared United States
double-standards, Iran achieved language whereby once the IAEA is
satisfied that all nuclear material in Iran is for peaceful purposes,
the US will seek legislative action to end or encourage the end of
nuclear-related sanctions on the acquisition of nuclear commodities or
services, “to be consistent with the US approach to other
non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT” (the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty). (6) A superpower never wishes to have language in an agreement
restricting its ability to use double standards unless it in fact needs
the agreement.

• The agreement also contains language
that requires the United States and its allies to “take all measures
required to lift sanctions and will refrain from imposing exceptional
or discriminatory regulatory and procedural requirements in lieu of
the sanctions and restrictive measures covered by the JCPOA”. (7)

As well the U.S. specifically will “take appropriate steps” and “will
actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into
account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of
sanctions”. (8) These possible preventive measures by Iran signal its
understanding of the long political reach of sanctions in the U.S.
Concessions to this understanding reflect something other than a mere we
want.
Unfortunately, the evidence of need does not assure the JCPOA’s
success, and the pattern of implementation leaves a sense of skepticism,
not due to Iran, which has met its requirements on schedule and well,
but for the EU/EU+3 (primarily the U.S., France and Britain) who are
stumbling along dealing with the effects of the needless atmospheric
poison they worked so hard to create about Iran, but now need to
detoxify, if the parties to the Agreement are to reap the benefits they
anticipated.Notes 1. Peter Jenkins, Asia Times, March 15, 2013, “A strange way to build trust with Iran”. 2. Mohamed El Baradei, The Age of Deception (Macmillan, 2011), page 196 3. The JCPOA, page 17 4. European Union FACTSHEET, Terms of the agreement on a Joint Plan of Action, 17 January, 2014:www.eeas.europa.eu 5. The JCPOA, page 22 6. The JCPOA, page 7 7. The JCPOA, page 8 8. The JCPOA, page 7Don L. Durivan is a Boston area long-time
student of foreign policy, and writes occasionally on either the
processes that lead to war making, or uncovering aspects of war or
conflict resolution that go largely unaddressed. He works professionally
on both domestic and developing-world health care projects.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole
responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on
Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect
statement in this article.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com